Saturday 20th of December 2014

swimming in it...

swimming in it

It is clear that neo-fascist capitalism does not like freedom... This could seem an idiotic statement, but it is true. When most neo-fascist capitalists talk about freedom, it is only on their own term, within the box that they create, including justifying the destruction or conquest of "others" for the box to exist.

 

Capitalism is only a tool of trade.

 

Neo-fascism is a doctrine of conservative politics that milks greed and glory, using capitalism to profit. I have argued on this site before, that should capitalism be our only tool of survival, it should be run by socialists:  It is a bit more cumbersome, but far less painful and less psychopathic than when it's run by the neo-fascist conservatives.  The neo-fascist conservatives call themselves or have been called "neo-liberals". They are capitalist neo-fascists.

 


Neo-fascist capitalists (or capitalist neo-fascists) are somewhat hypocritical about this, in the sense of they would ask what other freedom is there to have "but to get what you want when you want it"? I cannot argue with this. 
Once we're on the treadmill, it's basically impossible to get off. Should we fall off the treadmill, we will be punished in various ways, from bankruptcy to being dragged through the mud for being a loafer, or we acquire clinical depression for being a "failure". Success is the name of the game and we shall try over and over, as we fall off the saddle — or as we trundle behind our neo-fascist masters like troops of peasants going to war with pitchforks. 
The neo-fascist system does not like people being out of the loop for too long, so there will be compassionate "cures" including charity to get us back on the treadmill. We can't have much time to smell the flowers nor philosophise about life or see outside the box: we have to contribute and we have to foremost consume. It's as simple as this. Consume. In reality we never produce enough for the total of our consumption. Thus as we consume more, we get into debt. And the neo-fascist love it. 
Contradictorily, the neo-fascist capitalists hate loafers, can only deal with a certain number of "loafers" but capitalism needs "loafers" in order to keep the cost of employment as low as possible. This is why the neo-fascist capitalists hate unions... 
The present neo-fascist attack on unions led by Tony-the-Great-CONservative in Australia is a prime example of this. This attack of course was set as a counterpoint to the Royal Commission into sex abuse in institutions — including the Catholic Church — instigated by the previous government. Even Abbott has already siphoned cashed earmarked for the sex abuse commission towards "his" royal commission into the unions. 
The neo-fascist really hate their "religious" beliefs to be so dragged through the mud, though they "support" the investigation — mostly to show it was only a few rogues priests who did the deed, while in their neo-fascist mind, all unions are corrupt.
Union are being demonised at the moment by both sides of politics because what is also happening in business and other aspects of life, there has been some pilfering in the high echelons of some unions. But not all. In the mind of the neo-fascists, all unions have to suffer. It's convenient. And on the socialist side "the union  movement" is stopping its evolution towards being more like the neo-fascists. Greedy.
Of course the media has had a field day demonising unions — until their major witness is shown to be far more corrupt that their target... So there is an instant cover up. News become "we can't comment, the matter is in front of a court" though before, it did not stop them to tar and feather whom they chose, as long as the targets were on the Labor side. Most media in Australia is ultra-conservative and serving the neo-fascist well. 
We need our boogeyman when capitalism is sick or roaring hot. When capitalism is sick, it's due to workers — they earn too much while loafing too much. It's never due to the bosses who have their little scheme of bonuses and tax evasion in the Bahamas. We know, it's tradition that the donkey be blamed for all the ills and pestilence on the planet... 
When capitalism is roaring hot, the unions can be bashed at will.
In order to survive capitalism needs people to submit. This is mostly fascism. How is this submission to the treadmill achieved in a "modern world" when slavery and serfdom have been abolished? The submission is generated on two major fronts. 
First by using the traditional formula of religious dependency upon a "belief" and second by encouraging debt dependency. The military and secrecy is also used as a mafia for protection of the system in which decrees are formulated to make sure we toil, but rarely get ahead, except in small enjoyable comforts that our acquiring thereof provides massive profit for the rich. It's an improvement on slavery. We can have curtains hiding the brick wall. In a socialist capitalism, we are entitled to a small window.
Capitalism needs us to consume beyond our ability to consume, unsustainably. It is as simple as this. Capitalism is deliberately unsustainable. And capitalism is designed to be discreetly neo-fascist in its approach as to who rules the roost.
The central hub of neo-fascist capitalism is the USA. There is more deliberately conflicted zealot religious people in the USA than possibly anywhere else on earth. Atheism in US politics does not have a chance. Most of the masses in the US are dependent of churches and religious organisations for their moral guidance — and most of the same people will be in favour of aggression and guns. "Hell, Christ, let me defend my turf against evil. Amen". 
Neo-fascist capitalism could not survive if everyone was rich and/or equal... Thus the neo-fascists promote illusions of equality and freedom while abhorring those. This is the neo- in the hypocritical fascist equation.

As an aside, I can tell you that should someone develop a reasonably cheap reliable singular power unit to supply between 3 and 5 kWh to your home, using poo, grass cuttings and a combo of solar/farts energy, the neo-fascists would try very hard to stop it, or they would steal it from you. The system wants you to be dependent of the grid. Because there is no capitalism without dependency. Capitalism hates self-sustainability or self-sufficiency. 

And this why I can call this neo-fascism, because no matter how the system is designed, you are dependent to provide something in order to survive. There is a strong sense of ownership that comes with this system. From patents to blocks of land, we are all owners, except of our own self and the inevitable dispossessed. 

Even the unemployed on "benefit" provide something: they consume and they are mostly content. They do not revolt and don't steal much. They are on the shunt-lane because there is NEVER enough employment out-there. This is deliberate, though begrudgingly the system has to pay some meagre benefits  — that the CONservatives always try to cut, in order to send people back to the treadmill.  There are never enough consumers to have more treadmills working full bore. Most of the treadmill jobs have been replaced by robotics which end up producing more goods than can be bought... Cheap goods and massive debt become the next trap from the neo-fascists.
Should there be full employment in this system of supply and demand, the price of labour would go through the roof. 

And as we know, capitalism encourages "competition"... Often this competition is a fake and manipulated by banks for "profit" but this for another day... 

So far capitalism is the best system we have to move onwards, towards changes for the best on this small planet with no second thoughts about the damage done around us... But in the hands of CONservative neo-fascists, capitalism is dreadfully unfair and dangerous. 
In a capitalist neo-fascist world, our emotions are very much controlled by our learnt ability to consume... This reaches an insane level of compromises in our dealing with "news", especially on "commercial" TV et all, mixed with advertising. Even the ABC is not immune. The "news" (whatever that is) is of course a mouth piece for the propaganda of our neo-fascist masters in which the serious news is soon replaced by sport, a few graphs about the state of capitalism and the weather... Art features rarely. 

For example, the "Project" (News commentary on Channel 10) last night had a sombre ten minutes while discussing MH17, then soon after all presenters went into hysterical laughter with various comical stories... 
Within a 30 minute stint, we were taken on a roller-coaster ride of emotions from anger (that nasty Putin!), sadness, sorrow, a need to buy pantie liners, the price of a new car with exciting talking gizmos, clowning, more laughter, air freshener, loo cleaners, your need of insurance against your own death, and compassion as the "team" came back to a serious note about a school kid whose friend was taken away by the "authorities" for being an asylum seeker... all this followed by more adverts about automated pesticides. more dunny cleaners and a fast food outlet price blitz.  Cheap! Magic... I know better than to let my mind go through this washing machine of brainwash without a fall back position. I listen to classical music. But then it's about whatisname (Lohengrin) going on a crusade for the Holy Grail... Boy, there is no escape to our misery... and of people murdering someone else...  

Let's live in a fish-bowl. Or can we do better than this?...

Gus Leonisky
Your local idiotic consumer

 

the fascist abbott regime... and macbeth...

 

"This is a complete other conversation really, but of course I do find it appalling the way the ABC has been attacked by this present government, stacking the appointees to the board so it's become a political thing. You're actually saying 'if you say this on the ABC news we're going to cut your budget', which is essentially what Tony Abbott did. That's fascistic.

"Having an independent ABC and having a strong arts and cultural community is really important. Because there's more to life than economics; the economy – I don't know why it's the be-all and end-all of everything, to quote Shakespeare."

read more: http://www.theguardian.com/culture/australia-culture-blog/2014/jul/23/hugo-weaving-on-macbeth-hollywood-and-tony-abbotts-fascistic-cuts-to-the-abc

 

See also: fish in a pond...

 

the neo-fascist-liberalism...

To be at peace with a troubled world: this is not a reasonable aim. It can be achieved only through a disavowal of what surrounds you. To be at peace with yourself within a troubled world: that, by contrast, is an honourable aspiration. This column is for those who feel at odds with life. It calls on you not to be ashamed.

I was prompted to write it by a remarkable book, just published in English, by a Belgian professor of psychoanalysis, Paul Verhaeghe.What About Me? The Struggle for Identity in a Market-Based Society is one of those books that, by making connections between apparently distinct phenomena, permits sudden new insights into what is happening to us and why.

We are social animals, Verhaeghe argues, and our identities are shaped by the norms and values we absorb from other people. Every society defines and shapes its own normality – and its own abnormality – according to dominant narratives, and seeks either to make people comply or to exclude them if they don’t.

Today the dominant narrative is that of market fundamentalism, widely known in Europe as neoliberalism. The story it tells is that the market can resolve almost all social, economic and political problems. The less the state regulates and taxes us, the better off we will be. Public services should be privatised, public spending should be cut, and business should be freed from social control. In countries such as the UK and the US, this story has shaped our norms and values for around 35 years: since Thatcher and Reagan came to power. It is rapidly colonising the rest of the world.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/05/neoliberalism-mental-health-rich-poverty-economy

behind the curtains...

Frank Zappa: "The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables & chairs out of the way & you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre."

 

See toon at top...

the restless death of democracy...

 

If there are two things that one is likely to hear from college faculty today, they are that 1. Students are too careerist, and 2. We need a more democratic society. They worry about the growing utilitarian cast of education in general, as well as the remnants of hierarchy, authority, paternalism, and inequality in today’s society.

What they generally don’t see is the deep underlying connection between these two phenomena. A familiarity with Tocqueville’s essential Democracy in America would prove enlightening.

Tocqueville expresses wonder and awe at the activity of the Americans that he encountered during his visit to the United States in 1830-31. In contrast to the relative complacency of people in their social roles in aristocratic Europe—where no amount of work, effort or activity could move one either from the ranks of the aristocrats to the commoners, or vice-versa—Americans live daily with the awareness that their station in life is one of variability, potential, and fragility. The result was a society that was, by appearances, industrious, but more deeply riven with anxiety. Thus, Tocqueville was moved to call this condition one of “restlessness,” or “inquietude,” the inability to be “quiet” or still or in a state of quiescence.

In one of his justifiably most famous chapters, Tocqueville describes the resulting social state. Chapter 13 of Part 2, Volume II of Democracy in America is entitled “Why the Americans are so Restless in the Midst of their Prosperity,” which begins:

In America I saw the freest and most enlightened men placed in the happiest circumstances that the world affords, it seemed to me as if a cloud habitually hung upon their brow, and I thought them serious and almost sad, even in their pleasures.

The chief reason for this contrast is that the former do not think of the ills they endure, while the latter are forever brooding over advantages they do not possess. It is strange to see with what feverish ardor the Americans pursue their own welfare, and to watch the vague dread that constantly torments them lest they should not have chosen the shortest path which may lead to it.

I think often of this passage, having taught at three extraordinarily prestigious and famous institutions of higher learning—and having witnessed daily exactly this “cloud” upon the brows of our highest-achieving students. Far from being complacent and self-congratulatory about their membership in America’s (and, increasingly, the globe’s) elite, they are anxious and perturbed, worried about their prospects for “success” and whether they will measure up to others who are similarly blessed with such advantages—while staying ahead of those who are aiming to overtake them from below. 


read more: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-democracy-dies/


What is defined here is the deplorable neo-fascist attitude swimming in socio-psychopathy... in which success is measured on how many people you've walked over (or killed) in order to be top dog... It's more common than we realise.

a wee bit of history about decapitation...

Constantine entered Rome on 29 October.[171] He staged a grand adventus in the city, and was met with popular jubilation.[172] Maxentius' body was fished out of the Tiber and decapitated. His head was paraded through the streets for all to see.[173] After the ceremonies, Maxentius' disembodied head was sent to Carthage; at this Carthage would offer no further resistance.[174] Unlike his predecessors, Constantine neglected to make the trip to the Capitoline Hill and perform customary sacrifices at the Temple of Jupiter.[175] He did, however, choose to honor the Senatorial Curia with a visit,[176] where he promised to restore its ancestral privileges and give it a secure role in his reformed government: there would be no revenge against Maxentius' supporters.[177] In response, the Senate decreed him "title of the first name", which meant his name would be listed first in all official documents,[178] and acclaimed him as "the greatest Augustus".[179] He issued decrees returning property lost under Maxentius, recalling political exiles, and releasing Maxentius' imprisoned opponents.[180]

An extensive propaganda campaign followed, during which Maxentius' image was systematically purged from all public places. Maxentius was written up as a "tyrant", and set against an idealized image of the "liberator", Constantine. Eusebius, in his later works, is the best representative of this strand of Constantinian propaganda.[181] 

read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great

the internet technological freedom furphy...

 

Morozov expresses skepticism about the popular view that the Internet is helping to democratize authoritarian regimes, arguing that it could also be a powerful tool for engaging in mass surveillancepolitical repression, and spreading nationalist and extremist propaganda. He has also criticized what he calls "The Internet Freedom Agenda" of the US government, finding it naive and even counterproductive to the very goal of promoting democracy through the Web.[9]

The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom[edit]

In January 2011, Morozov published his first book The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom (ISBN 978-1586488741). In addition to exploring the impact of the Internet on authoritarian states, the book investigates the intellectual sources of the growing excitement about the liberating potential of the Internet and links it to the triumphalism that followed the end of the Cold War.[10]Morozov also argues against the ideas of what he calls cyber-utopianism (the inability to see the Internet's 'darker' side, that is, the capabilities for information control and manipulation of new media space) and Internet-centrism (the growing propensity to view all political and social change through the prism of the Internet).[11]

To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism[edit]

In March 2013, Morozov published a second book, To Save Everything, Click Here (ISBN 1610391381). Morozov's critique of "technology solutionism," the idea that, as Tim Wu put it, "a little magic dust can fix any problem" is timely and potentially valuable. But Wu, whose own work is severely critiqued by Morozov in To Save Everything,[12] goes on to dismiss Morozov's book as "rife with such bullying and unfair attacks that seem mainly designed to build Morozov’s particular brand of trollism" and "a missed opportunity" to actually discuss the issue.[13] Morozov believes that technology should be debated alongside debates about politics, economics, history, and culture.[14]

About Internet libertarians, Morozov told The New Yorker: "They want to be ‘open,’ they want to be ‘disruptive,’ they want to ‘innovate.’ “The open agenda is, in many ways, the opposite of equality and justice. They think anything that helps you to bypass institutions is, by default, empowering or liberating. You might not be able to pay for health care or your insurance, but if you have an app on your phone that alerts you to the fact that you need to exercise more, or you aren’t eating healthily enough, they think they are solving the problem.”[15]

read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeny_Morozov

 

As some recent article in a European newspaper tells us:

 

"We should treat the Silicon Valley with the same suspicion than Wall Street" 

Evgeny Morozov The university condemns the discourse of digital companies that camouflages "a new form of capitalism."


 

 

In your book, you criticize the speech from companies in Silicon Valley, which you call "solutionism." How would you describe in a few sentences, and what threat does it weigh? 

 

The solutionism is the tendency of some players, specifically entrepreneurs and companies in Silicon Valley, to claim that they know how to solve major political and societal issues. This is for example the tendency to rely on applications, devices self-tracking [the act of collecting oneself of personal data on its activities], various sensors increasingly present in our daily lives to solve societal problems. The main danger is that we depend on a few companies to address issues that we used to resolve collectively through the state or other collective actions. 


"We depend on companies to address the issues we used to collectively solve" 

The technologies are not neutrals, they also redefine the problem they are addressing. If you are tackling climate change, for example by following exactly how much energy you consume in your home, if you try to stop the obesity problem by assuming that it is only after bad habits the part of the individual, you get to set aside larger social and political factors. Obesity is not just because people are eating unhealthy foods, it's also because the food companies have too much power, because we do not regulate advertising aimed at children, because in the United States for example, the infrastructure is not designed to promote walking. It is a vast array of factors that are forgotten when one technology is the default tool to guide the actions of an individual.

 

Le Monde